Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to expect a Mother of older teens to go out and worK?

239 replies

doglover17 · 30/06/2014 11:27

One child well into their teens, walks to school. Shared 50/50 care with Father (ex). Lives off child maintenance, spousal, tax credits and child benefits. Has had a few part time jobs in the past but never sticks at them. Now declares they should not have to work. Is it unreasonable to expect them to find more independence through finding employment? If so why? And outside of this scenario, what sort of case would make it unreasonable?

OP posts:
aintnothinbutagstring · 30/06/2014 13:28

On the other thread, about exes paying child maintenance, didn't you say the issue was a no-go topic and you like a quiet life? Well there you go then.

Maleducada · 30/06/2014 13:29

brdgirl is correct, you can't know why a woman stays at home. I have one child on the spectrum and with a lot of careful management and backpeddaling behind the scenes, extra support with homework he appears (with all of the extra support) to be normal. But the second I went back to work there were problems. Problems that my 73 year old mother wasn't able to handle. So, if my x's new partner told me to work more hours I would just have to make more effort to spell things out loud and loud to my x.

Original poster
doglover17 · 30/06/2014 13:32

She could go back to work, yes, BUT she won't go back to work - this is from her. Which goes full circle to my original question in that is it an unreasonable opinion to expect that someone like her should go back to work, or not, aside from it being non of my business etc etc..?

OP posts:
Original poster
doglover17 · 30/06/2014 13:34

Yes aintnothinbutagstring but it got me thinking!!!!! I don't want to be unfair to anyone and will accept what will be will be, but am curious to know what others think. If that's OK.

OP posts:
fifi669 · 30/06/2014 13:35

I'd be speaking to DP about why he's still paying her. It is completely 50:50 with a week on/off of childcare (assuming he pays for clothes etc and extras when DC is with him as well as her) and she's capable of getting a job. I would tell her all child/spousal support is stopping in a month and do it.

STOPwiththehahaheheloling · 30/06/2014 13:36

She could go back to work, yes, BUT she won't go back to work

Its still absolutely nothing to do with you. Whether she works or not wouldnt affect the spousal maintenance your DH pays.

Her decision to work or not is her decision. No-one else knows her reasons so it's impossible to judge.

I think you need to get over this. You'll only wind yourself up with resentment. Which wi have no effect on whether she goes to work or not so it is pointless.

Icimoi · 30/06/2014 13:37

I agree that the ex husband shouldn't have to pay maintenance for ever, unless there is actually a good reason for the wife to be unable to work - which I'm guessing from the available evidence isn't the case. If the only reason the wife is asking for this is that she feels she shouldn't have to work, clearly that's not good enough. I suspect that if this dispute went to court the wife would get zero sympathy from the judge.

SirChenjin · 30/06/2014 13:41

YANBU

Quite why you would want to live off another adult to whom you were once married when you're perfectly capable of getting a job and earning your own way in life is beyond me. Unless, of course, you're happy to sit around doing nothing whilst someone else pays for the privilege. She's presumably going to have to go out to work quite soon when her DC reach a certain age - I hope she's doing something to build her CV in the meantime.

SirChenjin · 30/06/2014 13:43

Unless of course the DCs have severe additional needs which you don't know about

ChelsyHandy · 30/06/2014 13:47

Even courts now much favour one-off financial settlements on divorce instead of continuing spousal maintenance. Its considered kind of old-fashioned. Or if it is awarded, it will be for a set number of years only, and stops if the beneficiary gets remarried.

Was this woman married? I think most people with a new partner would find it odd that they financially supported a healthy ex with a teenage child, over and above child maintenance.

wannaBe · 30/06/2014 13:49

Are you sure she actually doesn't want to work or could it be that she is struggling to find work/that she wants to be there for the dc esp as parents no longer together etc?

I would love to be working atm. My xh pays me spousal maintanence (private arrangement, and certainly not for a lifetime!) and my plan was always that this would be for as limited a time as I could make it because I wanted my own financial independence.

I have however been unable to get a job in the past two years since we split partly because I had already been out of the job market for ten years due to being a sahm, and partly I think because I have a disability which limits the kinds of jobs I can apply for. In a market where currently nine out of ten employers recently surveyed said they wouldn't employ someone with a visual impairment, and even VI related charities are placing such stipulations on their job specs as "must hold a UK driving licence" I'm not liking my chances atm.

AM working on setting up my own business fwiw but that isn't going to happen over night.

I do think that there is little self respect in living off someone else who isn't your actual partner, but there are some instances where this is a necessity rather than a choice.

EarthWindFire · 30/06/2014 13:52

Do they have a consent order? If not he is under no obligation to keep paying.

Original poster
doglover17 · 30/06/2014 13:53

No mental or health issues with either the Mum or the child.

A longggggg history of emotional blackmail over the child and money.

She is very well qualified.

She has categorically now rejected the idea of work over being supported for life via the State and the Ex.

She lives mortgage free. The Ex is in rented accommodation with no chance of saving a deposit to buy a house due to the outgoings being so large. I support him with my earnings, so in turn I am supporting her indirectly.

The first port of call is to broach the 'work' issue in terms of being able to lessen the outgoings but as I've stated, that's a no. I wanted to know if this was unreasonable.

OP posts:
LayMeDown · 30/06/2014 13:55

I dont get this. OP your posts are frustratingly lacking in detail and it is really hard to get a full picture.

if this is a private arrangement then whether this woman works or not is not really relevant. The man in question is paying the money, presumably if he had strong feelings about her working he would stop paying it and she would have to find alternative sources of income. If they have an agreement they are both happy with and he is in a positon to support her to stay at home with their child then thats great. It seems very amicable.

If one doesnt have an issue with an SAHM when the couple are together why would it be an issue if they have seperated? If both parties are agreed then what the problem?

In answer to your question, no I dont think she should work if she can afford not to.

There are other benefits from working besides money of course but she obviously isnt interested in them, so why does she need to work?

MuttonCadet · 30/06/2014 13:57

Yes of course she's being unreasonable, and you're enabling her. Just stop supporting him, it's not your responsibility. (I paid CM on behalf of my husband when he was out of work for over a year, I shouldn't have).

STOPwiththehahaheheloling · 30/06/2014 13:59

doglover if she is being supported by the state she will be getting jobseekers so she will indeed be looking for work. You say neither her nor the child have any health issues and the child is over 5 so she cant be getting income support or carers allowance or incapacity benefit. She can only be getting jobseekers so will be looking for work.

ChelsyHandy · 30/06/2014 14:00

A longggggg history of emotional blackmail over the child and money

Does she have some kind of hold over your DP? (other than withholding access to the child?)

Were they married?

Is your DP stupid or perhaps still seeing her?

Are you hearing the full story?

Why doesn't he simply go to court to get an access order and settlement sorted out? If they were not married then he won't have to pay her maintenance, but even if for some reason he wants to, getting it formalised and proper legal advice would be a sensible step.

I have little sympathy for men who moan about access and other issues but don't bother to go to court to get proper court orders put in place.

MistressDeeCee · 30/06/2014 14:00

The more I read these type of threads on MN, the more I think people should be really careful about who is in their friendship circle, and how much of their private and financial business they reveal to certain friends. You could be sat in your home chatting over a cuppa with a greeneyed monster opposite you...all churned up inside with jealousy about what you do and don't do, as opposed to what annoys them about their own lives. Nosey "Female Solidarity"...I love it...

ComeHeather · 30/06/2014 14:01

agree that some teens need you to be around more than when they were younger. my ds1 does so I reduced my hours and then stopped altogether. We are on a low income as a result but life with him is infinitely easier as i have time and space to keep him busy with suitable activities.

Smilesandpiles · 30/06/2014 14:01

"Drain on the system" "Burden on others"

These are the first two clues about your opinion on a subject that actually has nothing to do with those, but to do with a private spousal maintainance agreement. A nice little kick to the unemployed there.

This is an arrangement between your DH and her. Mind your own and of it botheres you that much, talk to him about it. Her working or not has nothing to do with this.

Original poster
doglover17 · 30/06/2014 14:01

I am sorry about the lack of details. I really don't want to write much more about it due to privacy reasons. If this means I do not get a fair reflection on here then so be it. Regardless, it looks like the majority view is that it is an unreasonable opinion to have, whether I posted more details or not. I have taken that on board, it is a good reality check for me, and I thank you all very much for your time in replying. I will continue to read if there are any more posts.

Again, sorry for the lack of details and very many thanks.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 30/06/2014 14:02

the issue really is with your dp though op. If she is choosing not to work and he is choosing to facilitate this then in truth he is the one at fault not her.

I can see why he might choose to financially support her while their child is still living at home, but once the child is eighteen if he then chooses to continue to support her then you need to question why.

IMO your issue is with your dp not with his ex, but possibly not until his child is eighteen.

EarthWindFire · 30/06/2014 14:04

If it a private arrangement with no consent/court order then he is within his rights to stop it.

If she is basically blackmailing him with contact to the children then call her bluff.

Stollibolli · 30/06/2014 14:06

No one other than my immediate family knows that I'm both looking for a job and claiming job seekers. For what it's worth I've only started claiming in the last few months. I am a qualified teacher who after having a baby was refused any reduction in hours so I resigned. Two years later I'm trying to get a job but part time teaching jobs are rare and because I've been teaching for a long time I'm deemed expensive. Other part-time jobs I've applied for say I'm over qualified or don't even respond.

Someone looking from the outside would know none of this.

EarthWindFire · 30/06/2014 14:06

If it did go to court she would need to be seen to maximise her income.

Swipe left for the next trending thread